If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
In America, robots are our only hope.
Jeff-Relf.Me @. wrote:
Getting a good display, with the highest resolution+fps, is the hardest part of any build. The proper size of a monitor is an interesting question; it depends on how close you want it to be. There may come a day when everyone will be wearing computer screens; so you'll have no idea what anyone is looking at. In America, robots are our only hope; they must get better, because people are you getting worse. So are these killer robots, or snack-fetching robots ? It would be good if the snack-fetching robot could also weld, because it could work at the car plant all day, then come home and fetch snacks for me. Paul |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
Paul wrote:
T wrote: Hi All, I got talking to a guy yesterday whilst handing out cards. He started expounding on how he built his own computer and from what I saw, he did a pretty good job. He was able to move 3D graphics in real time. The thing he was the most proud of was the "generation" of the processors he picks. I presume he means Intel's processors. Now, to me the generation of the processor does not mean a lot. When building a customer computer, I first find the motherboard I want and then look at the specs to see what processor it takes. Then I check my suppliers stock to see what is in stick and what is the best value for what is needed. This usually is the current generation and one back. As far a generation of processors goes, the higher the generation, the better the power consumption. I haven't seen more than four cores making any practical difference with Windows. And multi-threading doesn't seem to matter on Windows after four real cores (Linux does make a big difference). As far a performance goes, the big bottleneck it the hard drive. I adore using NVMe drives ans they make a YUGE difference. Next would be the memory bus speed. Last of all would be the generation of the processor. I go for the motherboard that meets the customer's needs. To me the generator of the processor is what fits on the motherboard. Am I missing something? Does the "generation" of the processor really make that much difference? -T OK, here is a table I found, one where I didn't have to work very hard. The number on the right, is "normalized" for frequency. Why I am doing that, is to see whether the arch of the processor is magically more powerful than previous generations. I moved the items around in the table a bit, since a "simple-minded" classification scheme someone mentioned, isn't exactly right. The "lead digit" in the model number, isn't the generation. It's close, but they spread the models around. Really, no method is a reliable method at this level (and on the Ark web pages at Intel, Intel has on purpose not put that info in the entries of the *expensive* processors). And we know that some devices, like say comparing an IvyBridge to an IvyBridgeE, they could in fact be different generations. The E,X,EX and so on, usually got a crusty chipset with spiffy features missing, and you tended to get that feeling that the high end stuff came out on a different process or node. https://cpugrade.com/articles/cinebe...arison-graphs/ 223 9900K 5.00GHz Coffee Lake 9th 223/5 =44.6 201 8700K 4.70GHz Coffee Lake 9th 201/4.7 =42.8 189 7700K 4.59Ghz Kaby Lake 7th 2016-17 189/4.59 =41.1 190 9900X 4.40GHz Skylake 190/4.40 =43.2 184 7900X 4.30GHz Skylake 184/4.30 =42.8 182 6700K 4.20GHz Skylake 6th 2015-16 182/4.20 =43.3 155 6900K 3.70Ghz Broadwell 155/3.70 =41.9 153 5775C 3.70Ghz Broadwell 5th 2014-15 153/3.70 =41.4 141 5960X 3.50Ghz Haswell 2013 141/3.50 =40.3 159 4770K 3.90GHz Haswell 4th 159/3.90 =40.8 144 4960X 4.00Ghz Ivy Bridge 2012 144/4.00 =36.0 135 3960X 3.90GHz Sandy Bridge 135/3.90 =34.6 131 2600K 3.80Ghz Sandy bridge 2011 131/3.80 =34.5 But anyway, the message in that table, is for the most part, innovation stopped around Haswell or so. And this explains the "near future". And how the "stall" will be addressed with Sunny Cove. Sunny Cove will be the next installment of arch wars. https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/m...res/sunny_cove They have to deliver, or AMD will be all over them from a public relations point of view. Intel did release some 10nm CPUs, but they were sold into the Chinese market. I expect Intel planned for Sunny Cove to "one up" the Zen2 launch, but they might not be ready. Desktop parts could be a year away. https://www.anandtech.com/show/14436...-ice-lake-cpus Paul |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
In America, robots are our only hope.
Jeff-Relf.Me wrote:
Getting a good display, with the highest resolution+fps, is the hardest part of any build. The proper size of a monitor is an interesting question; it depends on how close you want it to be. There may come a day when everyone will be wearing computer screens; so you'll have no idea what anyone is looking at. In America, robots are our only hope; they must get better, because people are you getting worse. Yep. As an old fart, I'm falling apart. Where are the robot helpers to care for me? -- Quote of the Week: "I do not believe that the Great Society is the ordered, changeless and sterile battalion of the ants. It is the excitement of becoming--always becoming, trying, probing, falling, resting and trying again--but always trying and always gaining. In each generation--with toil and tears--we have had to earn our heritage again." --Lyndon B. Johnson Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly. /\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org / / /\ /\ \ http://antfarm.ma.cx. Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail. | |o o| | \ _ / ( ) |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
On 7/28/19 11:20 PM, Paul wrote:
T wrote: Hi All, I got talking to a guy yesterday whilst handing out cards. He started expounding on how he built his own computer and from what I saw, he did a pretty good job. He was able to move 3D graphics in real time. The thing he was the most proud of was the "generation" of the processors he picks.Â* I presume he means Intel's processors. Now, to me the generation of the processor does not mean a lot.Â* When building a customer computer, I first find the motherboard I want and then look at the specs to see what processor it takes.Â* Then I check my suppliers stock to see what is in stick and what is the best value for what is needed. This usually is the current generation and one back. As far a generation of processors goes, the higher the generation, the better the power consumption.Â* I haven't seen more than four cores making any practical difference with Windows.Â* And multi-threading doesn't seem to matter on Windows after four real cores (Linux does make a big difference). As far a performance goes, the big bottleneck it the hard drive.Â* I adore using NVMe drives ans they make a YUGE difference. Next would be the memory bus speed.Â* Last of all would be the generation of the processor. I go for the motherboard that meets the customer's needs. To me the generator of the processor is what fits on the motherboard. Am I missing something?Â* Does the "generation" of the processor really make that much difference? -T OK, here is a table I found, one where I didn't have to work very hard. The number on the right, is "normalized" for frequency. Why I am doing that, is to see whether the arch of the processor is magically more powerful than previous generations. I moved the items around in the table a bit, since a "simple-minded" classification scheme someone mentioned, isn't exactly right. The "lead digit" in the model number, isn't the generation. It's close, but they spread the models around. Really, no method is a reliable method at this level (and on the Ark web pages at Intel, Intel has on purpose not put that info in the entries of the *expensive* processors). And we know that some devices, like say comparing an IvyBridge to an IvyBridgeE, they could in fact be different generations. The E,X,EX and so on, usually got a crusty chipset with spiffy features missing, and you tended to get that feeling that the high end stuff came out on a different process or node. https://cpugrade.com/articles/cinebe...arison-graphs/ 223 9900K 5.00GHz Coffee LakeÂ* 9thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 223/5Â*Â*Â* =44.6 201 8700K 4.70GHz Coffee LakeÂ* 9thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 201/4.7Â* =42.8 189 7700K 4.59Ghz Kaby LakeÂ*Â*Â* 7thÂ* 2016-17Â*Â* 189/4.59 =41.1 190 9900X 4.40GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 190/4.40 =43.2 184 7900X 4.30GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 184/4.30 =42.8 182 6700K 4.20GHz SkylakeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 6thÂ* 2015-16Â*Â* 182/4.20 =43.3 155 6900K 3.70Ghz BroadwellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 155/3.70 =41.9 153 5775C 3.70Ghz BroadwellÂ*Â*Â* 5thÂ* 2014-15Â*Â* 153/3.70 =41.4 141 5960X 3.50Ghz HaswellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2013Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 141/3.50 =40.3 159 4770K 3.90GHz HaswellÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 4thÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 159/3.90 =40.8 144 4960X 4.00Ghz Ivy BridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2012Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 144/4.00 =36.0 135 3960X 3.90GHz Sandy BridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 135/3.90 =34.6 131 2600K 3.80Ghz Sandy bridgeÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â* 2011Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 131/3.80 =34.5 But anyway, the message in that table, is for the most part, innovation stopped around Haswell or so. It's hard to explain why the top item in the table is improved. Why the 9900K is better than the 8700K. Unless the memory on the two systems was quite different or something. There just isn't the level of detail to spot a difference. Maybe they're actually different tech, or the mesh bus setup is different, or... whatever. https://www.anandtech.com/show/13591...-power-for-sff Â*Â* Core 1Â*Â* 2Â*Â* 3Â*Â* 4Â*Â* 5Â*Â* 6Â*Â* 7Â*Â* 8 Â*Â* Freq 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 3.6 3.6 https://www.anandtech.com/show/11859...nitial-numbers Â*Â* Core 1Â*Â* 2Â*Â* 3Â*Â* 4Â*Â* 5Â*Â* 6 Â*Â* Freq 4.7 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.3 If I had a Haswell, I probably wouldn't be feeling too bad at this point. Â*Â* Paul Great chart. Thank you! Shows only real difference is clock speed. My own system uses a Xeon e3-1245-6 (supports ECC memory) : https://www.intel.com/content/www/us...apkw=e3-1245v6 And an NVMe hard drive with 2400 Mhz 16 GB ECC memory. It is over a year old now and it still tickles me every time I use it. Faster than the dickens. And I still have to use all 16 GB even with a bunch of programs open and Fedora, W-7, W-Nein (w10) running in VM's. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
On 7/29/19 12:47 AM, Paul wrote:
DesktopÂ*partsÂ*couldÂ*beÂ*aÂ*yearÂ*away. https://www.anandtech.com/show/14436...-ice-lake-cpus The braggart told me his home computer was gen 11. Hmmmmmmmm... |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
Â*BesidesÂ*IÂ*enjoyÂ*buildingÂ*andÂ*configuringÂ*t heÂ*machinesÂ*toÂ*myÂ*liking. Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but nothing beats putting together the real thing. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
On 2019-07-30 10:13 p.m., T wrote:
On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: Â*Â*BesidesÂ*IÂ*enjoyÂ*buildingÂ*andÂ*configuring *theÂ*machinesÂ*toÂ*myÂ*liking. Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but nothing beats putting together the real thing. No need for VMs in my case, My Coolermaster CM690 II case has a built in SSD hot swap bay built into the top, I have 5 120GB Samsung and Kingston SSDs on which I can install any operating system and slip on one and reboot into any OS I want in about 2 Minutes. At the moment I have the following OSs available. Windows 10 Insider Windows 7 Linux Mint 19.1 MX Linux 18.3 Xenialpup 7.5 And naturally Windows 10 1903 on one NVMe 512GB So you see I have the best of all worlds All running on really fast hardware and within 2 minutes reach. :-) Rene |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:04:59 -0500, Rene Lamontagne
wrote: On 2019-07-30 10:13 p.m., T wrote: On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: **Besides*I*enjoy*building*and*configuring*the*mac hines*to*my*liking. Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but nothing beats putting together the real thing. No need for VMs in my case, My Coolermaster CM690 II case has a built in SSD hot swap bay built into the top, I have 5 120GB Samsung and Kingston SSDs on which I can install any operating system and slip on one and reboot into any OS I want in about 2 Minutes. At the moment I have the following OSs available. Windows 10 Insider Windows 7 Linux Mint 19.1 MX Linux 18.3 Xenialpup 7.5 And naturally Windows 10 1903 on one NVMe 512GB So you see I have the best of all worlds All running on really fast hardware and within 2 minutes reach. :-) With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very handy. I always have 4-6 VMs running, and depending on the project(s) I'm working on, I may have 20-24 VMs running. That's for work purposes, though. If I wasn't using them for work, I'd probably only have about 4 running. Once you go VM, you'll never ever go back to multiboot. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:04:59 -0500, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 2019-07-30 10:13 p.m., T wrote: On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: Besides I enjoy building and configuring the machines to my liking. Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but nothing beats putting together the real thing. No need for VMs in my case, My Coolermaster CM690 II case has a built in SSD hot swap bay built into the top, I have 5 120GB Samsung and Kingston SSDs on which I can install any operating system and slip on one and reboot into any OS I want in about 2 Minutes. At the moment I have the following OSs available. Windows 10 Insider Windows 7 Linux Mint 19.1 MX Linux 18.3 Xenialpup 7.5 And naturally Windows 10 1903 on one NVMe 512GB So you see I have the best of all worlds All running on really fast hardware and within 2 minutes reach. :-) With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very handy. I always have 4-6 VMs running, and depending on the project(s) I'm working on, I may have 20-24 VMs running. That's for work purposes, though. If I wasn't using them for work, I'd probably only have about 4 running. Once you go VM, you'll never ever go back to multiboot. VMs are good, as long as the emulation is decent. VirtualBox has poor UEFI support, and cannot really be used for debugging UEFI problems. Consequently, for those situations, I have to go back to physical installs. Which isn't exactly pleasant by comparison. The BIOS emulations in virtual machine environments, are like a western town facade. You see a "second floor" on the buildings, but there is nothing behind the second floor facade. It's empty. Well, that's kind of what UEFI is like in VirtualBox. Installers don't do exactly the same thing in the VirtualBox environment, because the UEFI code isn't "mature". If I try to do a dual boot, the EFI resources get put in the wrong folders. The BIOS in one other VM environment was like that, with legacy BIOS bugs that would bite you in the ass occasionally. And yet, they were not interested in fixing it. It seems once a BIOS emulation "doesn't crash", they ship it... There is no "continuous improvement" model for the VM BIOS behavior. As an example of a legacy BIOS bug, when the OS was considering the "SoundBlaster audio emulation", it would compute the checksum of some bytes in the emulated hardware, and get the wrong value. And I would see, like a thousand times "disabling audio because checksum is blah blah blah". In other words, the bug in the emulation caused stuff to fail at runtime. Paul |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 12:12:37 -0400, Paul wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Wed, 31 Jul 2019 09:04:59 -0500, Rene Lamontagne wrote: On 2019-07-30 10:13 p.m., T wrote: On 7/28/19 7:26 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote: Besides I enjoy building and configuring the machines to my liking. Fire up a VM and you can play to your hears content, but nothing beats putting together the real thing. No need for VMs in my case, My Coolermaster CM690 II case has a built in SSD hot swap bay built into the top, I have 5 120GB Samsung and Kingston SSDs on which I can install any operating system and slip on one and reboot into any OS I want in about 2 Minutes. At the moment I have the following OSs available. Windows 10 Insider Windows 7 Linux Mint 19.1 MX Linux 18.3 Xenialpup 7.5 And naturally Windows 10 1903 on one NVMe 512GB So you see I have the best of all worlds All running on really fast hardware and within 2 minutes reach. :-) With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very handy. I always have 4-6 VMs running, and depending on the project(s) I'm working on, I may have 20-24 VMs running. That's for work purposes, though. If I wasn't using them for work, I'd probably only have about 4 running. Once you go VM, you'll never ever go back to multiboot. VMs are good, as long as the emulation is decent. VirtualBox has poor UEFI support, and cannot really be used for debugging UEFI problems. Consequently, for those situations, I have to go back to physical installs. Which isn't exactly pleasant by comparison. I have zero experience with VM hosts other than VMware Workstation Pro. That's what we use for work, so that's what I use for my personal projects. I'm mostly doing network design and modeling/testing, so I don't have a need for testing things like UEFI/BIOS corner cases. I thank you for doing it, though. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
On 7/31/19 10:02 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
[snip] With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very handy. Full backup (of the VM) is easy too, with the system disk being a single file on the host. I recently used this to transfer a VM to a different host machine, with very little trouble except one bit where I had to change an IP address in the registry. How much RAM does your system have? BTW, I have several VMs for testing (Windows 95, ME, 2000, XP, 7, 10). One of the Win95 ones actually has IE1 on it. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "God is a divider, not a uniter." |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 7/31/19 10:02 AM, Char Jackson wrote: [snip] With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very handy. Full backup (of the VM) is easy too, with the system disk being a single file on the host. I recently used this to transfer a VM to a different host machine, with very little trouble except one bit where I had to change an IP address in the registry. How much RAM does your system have? BTW, I have several VMs for testing (Windows 95, ME, 2000, XP, 7, 10). One of the Win95 ones actually has IE1 on it. That's not always the case with virtual machines. If you're using differencing disks, or if you park a VM (in effect "sleep it"), then multiple files can be involved. With differencing disks, there might be a 20KB file and a 64GB file with the same root name. If you "lose" the 20KB file, the 64GB file is "worthless". With differencing disks, the "big" image file is a "difference" with respect to the empty small file. I made the mistake once of grabbing just the large file, and was later told by the software how much trouble I was in. In most cases, your observation is right, but if you're a "clever individual", your mileage could vary. The configuration file that goes with the VM, contains some identifiers. It's possible, if you activate a license in the VM, that your configuration file needs to be preserved, with respect to "not getting a Not Genuine message". So while a lot of times, just slinging around the big file doesn't take a lot of planning, there may be situations where you regret not keeping some other materials. Todd may know something about this. Paul |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
CPU generation question
On Thu, 1 Aug 2019 11:23:02 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 7/31/19 10:02 AM, Char Jackson wrote: [snip] With VMs, you can have all of them running at the same time, so switching between them is nearly instantaneous. Programs running in a VM stay running when you switch the focus away. I find that to be very handy. Full backup (of the VM) is easy too, with the system disk being a single file on the host. I recently used this to transfer a VM to a different host machine, with very little trouble except one bit where I had to change an IP address in the registry. How much RAM does your system have? 64GB, but before building the current system I was running a pair of laptops with 16GB each, so I was juggling things back and forth between them for quite a while. Fortunately, VMware notices but doesn't mind when you pick a VM up and plop it somewhere else. BTW, I have several VMs for testing (Windows 95, ME, 2000, XP, 7, 10). One of the Win95 ones actually has IE1 on it. Imagine the hassle if you had to boot into each of them, one at a time, in order to use them. For me, that would be an entirely unworkable situation. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Scary UFO Tests.
Someone wrote:
Most applications do not thread worth beans. I instead put my money towards NVMe drives and fast memory buses. Now that makes a YUGE difference. The monitor, graphics card, and monitor arm are the hardest to get right, I think. The Apple monitor cost 6000$, and the stand is 1000$. Compared to that, the motherboard is chump change. Scary UFO Tests: http://TestUFO.COM |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
FFmPeg ?
Paul wrote:
The resulting 12 movie segments were then joined via lossless join, at around 150MB/sec. Using what, FFmPeg ? what are the commandline switches ? Can it save-off a 1 minute segment from 60 minute video ? 150 MegaBytes/sec ?! I thought a 26 MegaBits/sec video was a lot. What was the FPS and resolution ? If I ran the entire movie through one core, it would have taken forever. But that's what the software wanted to do. Googling " multi-threaded video editor " doesn't look promising; I doubt video editors use cores efficiently. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|